Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A) - (1.) THE instant Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 impugns the order dated 19.07.2012 of the respondent No. 1 questioning postponement of the personal talk scheduled to be held on 20.07.2012 on the ground that respondent No. 3 had 34 years working experience and had been granted relaxation of three months in the qualifying period so as to gain eligibility.
(2.) THE applicant has sought the following relief(s): - - "a). Pass appropriate order or direction to quash illegal, improper communication letter dated 19.07.2012 issued by the Ministry of Water Resources to the UPSC to postpone the interview/personal talk of the petitioner which was scheduled to be held on 20th July, 2012 at UPSC resulting postponement of interview/personal talk of the petitioner to the post of Chairman, Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) to be conducted by (UPSC) respondent No. 2. b). To direct R -1 & R -2 to hold interview/personal talk of the petitioner to the post of Chairman, CGWB at the earliest after issuing a fresh interview letter with date and time in accordance with the Rules of Respondent No. 1, or c). Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present OA, pass an interim order and direction restraining R -1 & R -2 to include the name of respondent No. 3 (internal candidate) who although do not fulfill the criteria laid down by the Ministry of Water Resources and as per the advertisement dated 10.12.2011. d). Pass any other or further order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice." The case of the applicant, briefly stated, is that he is Chief Scientist working as Deputy Director in National Geophysical Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as NGRI) Hyderabad. The respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement dated 10.12.2011 for the post of Chairman, Central Ground Water Board (hereinafter referred to as CGWB) in HAG scale on deputation basis. He received communications dated 19.06.2012 and 02.07.2012 [Annexure P -2 (Colly) page 38 of the paper book] from the respondent No. 2 addressed to the respondent No. 1 intimating that the applicant was the lone eligible candidate for the post of Chairman, CGWB and was invited for personal talk on 20.07.2012 at 10.30 a.m. The applicant communicated his acceptance to the invitation for the personal talk on 17.07.2012 well before due date. However, when he reached the venue at the appointed time, he was informed that the personal talk had been postponed. The applicant thereupon sent a communication dated 20.07.2012 to the Minister for Water Resources drawing his attention to the fact that as per Clause No. 2 of the advertisement dated 10.12.2011, the departmental officers in the feeder category who are in direct line of promotion are not eligible for consideration for appointment on deputation, including short term contract. Further, deputationists are also not eligible for consideration for appointment by promotion. No departmental candidate was found suitable for promotion through the DPC and it was on this account that the post under question was advertised to be filled up on deputation. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued by the applicant under Section 80 CPC without eliciting a satisfactory reply. The applicant thereafter filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 3389 of 2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.08.2012 directing the respondents to treat the writ as representation and to decide the same strictly within two weeks. Since the representation was not decided within a period of two weeks, the instant OA has been filed.
(3.) THE principal ground adopted in the OA is that as per Clause No. 2 of the advertisement, the departmental officers in the feeder category in direct line of promotion were not eligible for consideration for appointment on deputation including short term contract. Further, the deputationists were also not eligible for promotion. Hence, the communication of respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 dated 19.06.2012 to include the name of the respondent No. 3 was against their own advertisement and terms of contract and hence violative of principles of natural justice, which is grossly prejudicial to the interest of the applicant. The candidature of all the departmental employees had been considered before the advertisement had been issued. The claim of the applicant as an internal candidate had already been rejected whereas the respondent No. 3, who did not fulfill the essential qualification as per the terms of the advertisement dated 10.12.2011, had been wrongly appointed.;